• Guest - w'd love to know what you think about the forum! Take the 2025 Survey »

Statins - good or bad - what does the research say?

Mike D said:
Hopefully some other people will read these stories and adjust their thinking. Won't count on it though.
Click to expand...

Ha ha ha @Mike D - ironically for once, you're wrong: "Some other people" are reading these stories AND adjusting their thinking and actions - I was one of them (as are all but the 'refuseniks')

If, however "Some other people" refers to the establishment, then I suspect that the picture is less encouraging.
 
ConradJ said:
Ha ha ha @Mike D - ironically for once, you're wrong: "Some other people" are reading these stories AND adjusting their thinking and actions - I was one of them (as are all but the 'refuseniks')

If, however "Some other people" refers to the establishment, then I suspect that the picture is less encouraging.
Click to expand...

Hi @ConradJ

Gidday ... nope, it was a general comment directed to those who need to look harder at statins rather than do the research and seriously consider the risks as well as those who won't because they're convinced they're OK. And yes, I've been wrong on numerous occasions :)
 
I was on Statins for years with no problems but then started to get terrible pains in my upper arms and shoulders so much so that I even had problems even tucking my shirt in, after reading some of the posts on here I decided to give them up a couple of months ago and I really can't believe how much better I feel and am now able to use the gym again which has to be doing me more good than taking statins!
 
The statement I remember most from Dr Kendrick's book 'The great Cholesterol Con' is 'Statins will not change the date that I write on your death certificate, but may change the Cause of Death' and 'Statins will not significantly extend your life expectancy, but will make you feel 15 years older'. It says it all really. Your experience is very common, it is too easy to attribute side effects of statins to the natural ageing process. I wonder how many older people, being treated for arthritis, memory issues etc, would improve if they stopped the statin?
 
Quick update. Saw my GP today and we had a good meeting. Most of my indicators went in the right directions, apart from total cholesterol, which went North by 0.1 mmol/L. GP wanted me to do more statins, I wanted to do NONE. When I pointed out that 0.1 mmol was not significant considering I had already stopped taking my statins 6 months previous, then I WIN. I am now off my statins subject to a review in 6 months time, by which time hopefully LCHF will have done its stuff and dropped my LDL. We also discussed ASCOT and GP was surprised to discover that the conclusions that NICE used did not come from the data presented in the report. He has also heard of the latest meta analysis that suggests us old fellowes live longer with higher cholesterol, and that statins make no difference for women. So we reached agreement amicably.
 
Oldvatr said:
Quick update. Saw my GP today and we had a good meeting. Most of my indicators went in the right directions, apart from total cholesterol, which went North by 0.1 mmol/L. GP wanted me to do more statins, I wanted to do NONE. When I pointed out that 0.1 mmol was not significant considering I had already stopped taking my statins 6 months previous, then I WIN. I am now off my statins subject to a review in 6 months time, by which time hopefully LCHF will have done its stuff and dropped my LDL. We also discussed ASCOT and GP was surprised to discover that the conclusions that NICE used did not come from the data presented in the report. He has also heard of the latest meta analysis that suggests us old fellowes live longer with higher cholesterol, and that statins make no difference for women. So we reached agreement amicably.
Click to expand...
That is very good news. I actually feel sorry for our GPs, especially the good ones. I try to remind myself that I am only interested in one or two medical conditions, every patient they see is different. I am retired and reading and researching medical matters that are pertinent to me and mine is a passion. They get fed a load of rubbish by drugs reps and pharmacy sponsored 'Continuous Professional Development' and even NICE is no help to them. Patient power is going to be a significant force in the future.
 
AtkinsMo said:
That is very good news. I actually feel sorry for our GPs, especially the good ones. I try to remind myself that I am only interested in one or two medical conditions, every patient they see is different. I am retired and reading and researching medical matters that are pertinent to me and mine is a passion. They get fed a load of rubbish by drugs reps and pharmacy sponsored 'Continuous Professional Development' and even NICE is no help to them. Patient power is going to be a significant force in the future.
Click to expand...
You raise a very good point here. It is so easy to criticise the medical profession when really it is the bureaurocrats and accountants (and politicians) that actually have ultimate control over our care. I have the energy and time to concentrate on my condition and my needs, but my support team have a whole caseload to care for. I try to remember that. Thank you for posting.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Indy51 said:
Interesting long-term study on statins increasing the risk of kidney disease and an opinion piece by Justin Smith of the Statin Nation site on it:

http://www.statinnation.net/blog/2015/12/22/statins-increase-kidney-disease-risk-by-30-36
http://www.ajconline.org/article/S0002-9149(15)02315-2/abstract
Click to expand...


i was prescribed Statins when I was diagnosed type 2 diabetic but found that they where waking me up every morning around 03.00 am, after a few attempts i gave them and i have since started using a product called Optibac, my cholesterol has dropped from 5.6 when diagnosed to 3.2 when i had my blood tests 2 weeks ago, and i have had no side effects.
 
greycat001 said:
Sue the doctors, this is ridiculas, how do they get away with it, this has got to stop!
Click to expand...
Maybe this is why, when I was rushed to hospital just before christmas with urosepsis (caused by an undetected UTI that went to my kidneys and beyond) the doctors took me off statins! They also stopped my Metformin! I was never told why or indeed if I should start taking them again once recovered. I have been left very confused. Am now waiting for results of Kidney function and Cholesterol.
 
GrannyAnnie said:
Maybe this is why, when I was rushed to hospital just before christmas with urosepsis (caused by an undetected UTI that went to my kidneys and beyond) the doctors took me off statins! They also stopped my Metformin! I was never told why or indeed if I should start taking them again once recovered. I have been left very confused. Am now waiting for results of Kidney function and Cholesterol.
Click to expand...
I believe it is normal to temporary stop Metformin in advance of certain medical procedures, It is in the leaflet that comes in the pack. Not sure if statins carry same. I am off statins now, so have no leaflets around to check myself. Presumably if you get the all clear from your blood tests, then you should be advised accordingly. At least you will be aware to ask the question.
The advice on stopping metformin I gave above is subject to discussion, and you may find the following of interest
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/835713_3
Please note that this change may only apply if kidney function is not impaired, so your infection may preclude this.
i seem to remember that some statins I was on did have a warning about impaired kidney function, so it may be right that they stopped it until you got sorted out.
 
Ploughing through stuff from the BMJ it appears that statins can lower LDL by about 20% but then they were equating that to over 1 mmol/l so original LDL had to be at least 5mmol/l. At lower LDL concentrations the effect was apparently less. I can't help but wonder how this has been translated into a general 'lower is better' even for people who have what used to be considered a very 'normal' level of total cholesterol which I remember as being around 5.5 or so in total.
Anyway in my personal experiment I seem to have proven that a low carb/ high fat diet trumps statins for effectiveness and with actual positive side effects (weight loss, general well being, reduced blood sugar levels etc) rather than the potential negative ones from statins. I have obtained a 50% reduction in triglycerides (0.8 to 0.4), an increase in HDL of over 1mmol/l almost 50% increase in this so called 'good' cholesterol and a reduction of nearly 20% in LDL from a starting point of only 3.0mmol/l. Will definitely be giving statins a miss.
The downside is that I don't now get to go tell my doctor how I did it since the receptionist gave me the results and just said ' no action to be taken'.
 
Seadragon you have encouraged me . Tried every statin and all have given me muscle pain and the current one (Crestor) is making my wrists so weak i keep dropping things .Restarted basal/bolus with carb lowering plus counting and am so hoping my levels will drop enough for me to safely come off of them
 
I think for me even if statins were a sure fire preventative against heart attacks and strokes ( they are not at all guaranteed and only protect against one of the two types of stroke in best case scenario - the non fatal ones. The ones most likely to be fatal they give no protection against!) I would prefer a shorter life free of the side effects rather than have a long life but debilitated by muscle pains etc. ( yes I know not everyone gets them apparently but I'm not taking that risk, since for some people it seems irreversible damage is done). For myself I have proved that the low carb diet is more effective than statins and I am glad you are trying this @borderter. You might still have difficulty persuading your doc that you don't want statins because of course the practice gets extra money for prescribing them (and for every diabetic on their books and statins increase risk of diabetes......). Unfortunately many docs still see all diabetics as the same so prescribe the one size fits all meds regardless of actual risks it seems.
I'm almost tempted to make an appointment just to say 'you know you told me Diabetes was progressive and I should take metformin and statins - well look what a low carb diet high in good fats has done. Thank-you for scaring me with the threat of meds as it gave me the impetus to find a better way and I have done. I actually feel years younger now!"
 
Came across this on the Malcolm Hendrick blog.

"Beyond confusion and controversy, can we evaluate the real efficacy and safety of cholesterol-lowering with statins?" By Michel de Lorgeril and Mikael Rabaeus. Journal of Controversies in Bio-Medical Research Vol 1, No 1 (2015), ie a new journal.

It was published last year by a Swiss and a French cardiologist. Lorgeril is an MD and cardiologist working at the CNRS; so is Rabaeus, but working at a private clinic in Geneva. They compare statins RCTs results classifying by particular methodological factors.

From the end of the abstract:

"In conclusion, this review strongly suggests that statins are not effective for cardiovascular prevention. The studies published before 2005/2006 were probably flawed, and this concerned in particular the safety issue. A complete reassessment is mandatory. Until then, physicians should be aware that the present claims about the efficacy and safety of statins are not evidence based."

Happy reading!

Edit: @phoenix, @tim2000s, what do you think? This was just a MedLine search by these two physicians, comparing data on rosuvastatin RCTs over two periods. So it's just an analysis. But with that caveat, does it seem reasonably well constructed to you? I had a quick look thro but didn't go thru the methodology in detail. LSW
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Hi @LucySW Thank you for bringing this to our attention. I am by no means fluent in statistics, but I did have a quick look at some RCT reports for this thread, and I drew much the same conclusions. i did not have to go far to find that the conclusions in these reports was not related to the data shown in the body of the reports, and i am pleased that a more thorough analysis has reached the same conclusion.

I have further researched in terms of the PETO statistical method used, and I have found that quite clearly there is inbuilt bias when deriving the risk ratio values that increases logarithmically the bigger the difference between the observed and expected results are. I provide a link to one such report, but it is heavy reading.
http://www.kbs.med.kyoto-u.ac.jp/SatoBIC05.pdf

I am surprised that the follow up report you provided did not pick up on this since the methodology originally used has been shown to be totally flawed. Mind you, the two reports I looked at were ignored from the analysis you linked to, so maybe they had already rejected them.
 
When I came off Simvastin 20g which I'd been taking for 9+ years, my average fbg came down by approx 1.5 points - coincidence? I think not
 
Back
Top